|
|
Post by Captj on Feb 28, 2024 5:09:46 GMT -5
The phone records show pretty clearly when the Fani spanking started. I like what you did there. |
|
|
|
Post by osprey11 on Feb 28, 2024 12:17:28 GMT -5
When pressed on why he would just randomly speculate. He said he may have lied. So you're saying that Trump's star witness may have lied? LOL crazy and dumb is a bad look. No the guy that is trying to backtrack on Fani's and Wades lies, lied. |
|
|
|
Post by luapnor on Feb 28, 2024 12:48:39 GMT -5
So you're saying that Trump's star witness may have lied? LOL crazy and dumb is a bad look. No the guy that is trying to backtrack on Fani's and Wades lies, lied. Luckily for BT, tarp said he was a handsome feller. |
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Feb 28, 2024 13:48:50 GMT -5
These fools never get tired of getting disappointed when their crazy echo chamber is inevitable wrong and they, yet again, take it in the twins.
|
|
|
|
Post by PolarsStepdad on Feb 28, 2024 13:50:52 GMT -5
These fools never get tired of getting disappointed when their crazy echo chamber is inevitable wrong and they, yet again, take it in the twins. |
|
|
|
Post by throttle on Feb 28, 2024 19:00:07 GMT -5
Terrence Bradley said he was only speculating and never witnessed when the relationship between Nathan Wade and District Attorney Fani Willis actually began. This was the cornerstone of Mrs. Merchant entire case. I liked the part where he was asked, after previously testifying that he did know when Fani and Wade started knocking boots, and then changing his story to "didn't really know...", he was asked "if you didn't know [about the relationship] why didn't you just say 'I don't know'?" The response was " I don't know". And the guy's a lawyer. Playing the retard is not a good look. |
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Feb 28, 2024 19:08:34 GMT -5
Terrence Bradley said he was only speculating and never witnessed when the relationship between Nathan Wade and District Attorney Fani Willis actually began. This was the cornerstone of Mrs. Merchant entire case. I liked the part where he was asked, after previously testifying that he did know when Fani and Wade started knocking boots, and then changing his story to "didn't really know...", he was asked "if you didn't know [about the relationship] why didn't you just say 'I don't know'?" The response was " I don't know". And the guy's a lawyer. Playing the retard is not a good look. Sucks when one's key witness is not credible and doesn't say what one thought they would once on the stand. They should of vetted their witness more thoroughly and deposed him instead of just email chit chat. That's a Trump problem, not a prosecution problem in this case. |
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Mar 1, 2024 15:13:19 GMT -5
Less than thrilled with the state's choice of attorney to present it's side. Solid on the law it seems, but a lot of nervousness, ums and other vocalized pauses, and just seems inexperienced.
They could of done better.
|
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Mar 1, 2024 15:26:52 GMT -5
Less than thrilled with the state's choice of attorney to present it's side. Solid on the law it seems, but a lot of nervousness, ums and other vocalized pauses, and just seems inexperienced. They could of done better. That got me curious I just tuned in. It is less important to have a smooth presentation for the judge than it is a jury. Judges are supposed to be able to cut through the delivery and weigh the substance of the argument. Juries don’t do that near as well. But the substance of what the weak speaker says needs to be solid. However, I just tuned in to hear him say that the State isn’t required to have an appearance of a lack of impropriety. Eeeeck! Prosecutors absolutely must avoid an appearance of impropriety. He was skewing case law about the State having a bias in terms of believing full tilt in the Defendant’s guilt. Well, of course the prosecutor should be all in for being convinced of the Defendant’s guilt. But that has nothing to do with avoiding the appearance of improper conduct. |
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Mar 1, 2024 15:28:30 GMT -5
I've watched every second of the trial so far. It's fascinating.
|
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Mar 1, 2024 15:34:13 GMT -5
Now also consider that public opinion matters and right now the lispy prosecutor may look bad to the citizens watching. He does seem to be doing a shotgun approach where he’s throwing up every argument he can whether its strong or weak and its just a bunch of babbling.
|
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Mar 1, 2024 15:35:38 GMT -5
Less than thrilled with the state's choice of attorney to present it's side. Solid on the law it seems, but a lot of nervousness, ums and other vocalized pauses, and just seems inexperienced. They could of done better. That got me curious I just tuned in. It is less important to have a smooth presentation for the judge than it is a jury. Judges are supposed to be able to cut through the delivery and weigh the substance of the argument. Juries don’t do that near as well. But the substance of what the weak speaker says needs to be solid. However, I just tuned in to hear him say that the State isn’t required to have an appearance of a lack of impropriety. Eeeeck! Prosecutors absolutely must avoid an appearance of impropriety. He was skewing case law about the State having a bias in terms of believing full tilt in the Defendant’s guilt. Well, of course the prosecutor should be all in for being convinced of the Defendant’s guilt. But that has nothing to do with avoiding the appearance of improper conduct. I get what you're saying, and I have confidence in the judge and the law. He said that in the cited cases there was always actual impropriety found that lead to the appearance of that. I believe the bar in Georgia to disqualify a DA based on what's been alleged is much higher than what you are used to, and appearance in and of itself does not legally meet that bar. That's what we have the judge for to determine. We'll soon see what the judge decides in that regard, and his opinion will surly address your point. All that aside, I've done a lot of professional public speaking, and this guy does not make the basic cut. |
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Mar 1, 2024 15:40:37 GMT -5
Also, honest question, if the appearance of impropriety is the bar, how does Justice Thomas get a pass considering his relationships with Harlan Crow, and his own wife's participation in cases that are before him?
It's undeniable that there is at least an appearance of impropriety there, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Mar 1, 2024 15:45:11 GMT -5
That got me curious I just tuned in. It is less important to have a smooth presentation for the judge than it is a jury. Judges are supposed to be able to cut through the delivery and weigh the substance of the argument. Juries don’t do that near as well. But the substance of what the weak speaker says needs to be solid. However, I just tuned in to hear him say that the State isn’t required to have an appearance of a lack of impropriety. Eeeeck! Prosecutors absolutely must avoid an appearance of impropriety. He was skewing case law about the State having a bias in terms of believing full tilt in the Defendant’s guilt. Well, of course the prosecutor should be all in for being convinced of the Defendant’s guilt. But that has nothing to do with avoiding the appearance of improper conduct. I get what you're saying, and I have confidence in the judge and the law. He said that in the cited cases there was always actual impropriety found that lead to the appearance of that. I believe the bar in Georgia to disqualify a DA based on what's been alleged is much higher than what you are used to, and appearance in and of itself does not legally meet that bar. That's what we have the judge for to determine. We'll soon see what the judge decides in that regard, and his opinion will surly address your point. All that aside, I've done a lot of professional public speaking, and this guy does not make the basic cut. Let’s say its so that the threshold to remove her hasn’t been met. Whatever his smoking gun case law is, he needs to be harping on the law. The more he drones on the more he emphasizes how tied up Willis and Wade were. May not matter for the legal aspect but for the PR aspect its helping Trump’s argument to the voters than Willis is a corrupt partisan that’s paying her boyfriend exorbitant fees on the tax payer’s dime. |
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Mar 1, 2024 15:47:07 GMT -5
I wonder if the court reporter has to include every vocalized pause? Serious question BF, do you know?
|
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Mar 1, 2024 15:51:24 GMT -5
I get what you're saying, and I have confidence in the judge and the law. He said that in the cited cases there was always actual impropriety found that lead to the appearance of that. I believe the bar in Georgia to disqualify a DA based on what's been alleged is much higher than what you are used to, and appearance in and of itself does not legally meet that bar. That's what we have the judge for to determine. We'll soon see what the judge decides in that regard, and his opinion will surly address your point. All that aside, I've done a lot of professional public speaking, and this guy does not make the basic cut. Let’s say its so that the threshold to remove her hasn’t been met. Whatever his smoking gun case law is, he needs to be harping on the law. The more he drones on the more he emphasizes how tied up Willis and Wade were. May not matter for the legal aspect but for the PR aspect its helping Trump’s argument to the voters than Willis is a corrupt partisan that’s paying her boyfriend exorbitant fees on the tax payer’s dime. The PR ship has sailed, so all the judge can do is rule on the law. Either way the chips will fall where they may at trial. Regardless, the courts, none of them, are going to save America from Trump. He's immune to consequences for his legitimately criminal acts for various reasons. IMHO. He is correct that he could shoot someone of 5th Avenue and get away with it. |
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Mar 1, 2024 16:04:00 GMT -5
Also, honest question, if the appearance of impropriety is the bar, how does Justice Thomas get a pass considering his relationships with Harlan Crow, and his own wife's participation in cases that are before him? It's undeniable that there is at least an appearance of impropriety there, no? He’s not a prosecutor. Now should a judge recuse themselves from cases in which close family members are parties or are involved as attorneys? Absolutely. But that’s something else with no bearing here. What we have is a lying prosecutor. Prosecutors aren’t allowed to lie. And they should not be giving their boyfriends a high paying job that wouldn’t exist except for this specific case. It absolutely makes it appear that the prosecutor is seeking to deprive a human being of his liberty for the sake of romantic and financial gain. |
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Mar 1, 2024 16:04:39 GMT -5
I wonder if the court reporter has to include every vocalized pause? Serious question BF, do you know? The “uhhhs?” Usually they do. |
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Mar 1, 2024 16:06:52 GMT -5
I’ve read many uhh and umms in transcripts. Sometimes my own.
|
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Mar 1, 2024 16:24:07 GMT -5
That's it. We'll know within two weeks. Ironic lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Mar 1, 2024 16:31:53 GMT -5
That's it. We'll know within two weeks. Ironic lol. What’s the irony? |
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Mar 1, 2024 16:52:35 GMT -5
That's it. We'll know within two weeks. Ironic lol. What’s the irony? All things Trump are invariably in two weeks. |
|
|
|
Post by osprey11 on Mar 1, 2024 17:29:05 GMT -5
See you in two weeks for that mea culpa.
|
|
|
|
Post by osprey11 on Mar 1, 2024 17:45:18 GMT -5
biminitwisted
Senior Member
******
biminitwisted Avatar
Feb 15, 2024 at 9:44pm
Neither her or Wade are going anywhere. I have full confidence in the judge, and the law.
|
|
|
|
Post by osprey11 on Mar 1, 2024 17:45:52 GMT -5
I mean you did watch the WHOLE thing. LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by osprey11 on Mar 1, 2024 17:54:48 GMT -5
biminitwisted
Senior Member
******
biminitwisted Avatar
Posts: 4,516
Feb 15, 2024 at 10:18pm
QuotelikePost OptionsPost by biminitwisted on Feb 15, 2024 at 10:18pm
Yes, she did fine. She was honest, assertive and sincere in her answers. There's no jury here where one has to worry about looking a certain way (white), or not raising one's voice. She can bang who she wants, and drink what she wants.
How quickly we forget Justice Kavanaugh's performance..
The law is on her side, and she's not going anywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by osprey11 on Mar 1, 2024 18:00:55 GMT -5
Might be the worst all time post! That is saying something.
|
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Mar 1, 2024 18:35:18 GMT -5
I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. If this goes South on the DA, well, so be it.
That means I was wrong about the appearance of impropriety, Vs. actual impropriety.
But if that's then case, then there's no non hypocritical explanation for Justice Thomas continuing on the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
|
Post by osprey11 on Mar 1, 2024 19:13:22 GMT -5
You are definitely twisted.
|
|
|
|
Post by garycoleco on Mar 1, 2024 19:19:23 GMT -5
I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. If this goes South on the DA, well, so be it. That means I was wrong about the appearance of impropriety, Vs. actual impropriety. But if that's then case, then there's no non hypocritical explanation for Justice Thomas continuing on the Supreme Court. You're always wrong and for the wrong reasons. Politics are your only guiding light. This case will set a precedent for many generations of law students. Chasing a former president for the sole purpose of political gain is simply dangerous. Sorry you can't see that..... |
|
